Why it's time for America to relinquish custody of the internet

The world wide web can often seem like a lawless place; free and open and beyond the control of any one government or censor. It has been one of the basic principles of the web in the three decades since it was invented, and why it sounds ridiculous for Donald Trump to say that the US government should order parts of the internet to be shut down to fight terror: that power should belong to no-one.

But in one way, America does control the internet. It has had ultimate control over the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, better known as ICANN, since it was formed in 1998. You may not be aware of ICANN, but it's the closest thing the internet has to a government; it maintains and controls the directory of website names and internet protocol addresses (the unique number that identifies each computer that goes online, and allows two computers to communicate with each other).

ICANN makes sure that when we type www.google.com into your web browser it will direct you to the Google search engine, as will any other web browser on any other computer (assuming the website is not blocked, as it is in some parts of the world). But despite being a crucial part of the web, controlling hundreds of millions of addresses in every country, it has ultimately been answerable to the White House for 18 years.

That was until last Thursday, when the organisation submitted long-awaited proposals to the US Government that would see it made independent. The plan had been in the works for two years, since Edward Snowden's revelations about American surveillance led Washington to propose giving up control, and according to ICANN's chief executive Fadi Chehadé, had been the goal since it was founded.

The events of last Thursday were seen as a momentous occasion, not least because it had taken many months of wrangling between countries, internet stakeholders, NGOs, businesses and ICANN itself to reach an agreement. Assuming that Congress approves the transition, not something to be taken for granted, the body that runs the internet will be effectively privatised by September, and answerable to a consortium of interested parties.

Why does this matter? The average internet user is unlikely to notice much of a difference, if any at all. It is unlikely that the job ICANN has done in recent years would have been too different under the new structure it is proposing, and the US Government has not intervened in its day-to-day running – ICANN has even sided against American corporations in the past.

And yet, those assembled at ICANN's summit in Marrakech last week (including the UK's culture minister Ed Vaizey), treated the event as seminal: Mr Chehadé punched the air when the press conference announcing the deal finished.

Governance of the internet has been relatively peaceful until now, but as the online world becomes increasingly important, it has the potential to become more difficult.

Web domains are becoming increasingly valuable real estate, and some change hands for tens of millions of pounds. A recent Cambridge study suggest ed that cyberspace was rapidly becoming overcrowded, with demand for prime website addresses outstripping supply by around 25pc. The last few years has seen ICANN respond by allowing hundreds of new "top level domains" - websites that end in ".london" or ".hotel" - to ease the capacity crunch, and is now managing their introduction: the web address for Google's new holding company Alphabet is abc.xyz, a domain ending that was made available in 2014.

ICANN's responsibility is only going to become more important as disputes rise up over these new domains, so who runs it matters more than ever. And the transfer of power is starting to become a political issue in the US. Last month, the candidate for the Republican nomination Ted Cruz criticised Mr Chehadé's links to China, having already said he opposes the US relinquishing control of ICANN. The deadline for America to cede control of the organisation is just two months before the presidential election, so the process threatens to take another turn. Mr Chehadé admitted that the timing is not ideal but is confident the transfer of power will go through.

Ted Cruz is among those to question ICANN's transfer of controlCredit:
Getty Images

But there are many other reasons the move is important. The internet is still in its infancy, and although we don't yet know what the applications and issues of the future will be, they should be managed by an independent and accountable international organisation. The new ICANN also presents a model of international governance that could be applied to many technological disputes: encryption, surveillance, cybersecurity and data ownership are all matters that cross borders and require an international dialogue from more than just one government, as the current battle between Apple and the FBI shows.

When America relinquishes its control of ICANN, most people are unlikely to notice what has happened, but the handover helps ensure that the internet doesn't splinter amid regional differences. It could be a crucial step towards a web we can rely on.